La arqueología y el estudio del conflicto armado en contextos prehistóricos e históricos: un estado de la cuestión Archaeology and the study of armed conflicts in prehistoric and historic contexts: a review
Cargando...
Fecha
Authors
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Escuela de Historia; Facultad de Humanidades y Artes.
Resumen
Descripción
El estudio de la guerra y hechos de violencia grupal de distintos tipos y escalas ha experimentado un enorme
crecimiento en la arqueología contemporánea. Aunque se los suele incluir bajo la denominación genérica de
Arqueología del Conflicto, la misma dista mucho de constituir un campo unificado programáticamente. Por el
contrario, existen varios subcampos que se diferencian notoriamente entre sí, siendo la división fundamental
la determinada por el estudio de casos prehistóricos o históricos. El tipo de información disponible es lo que
determina las diferencias en el abordaje teórico-metodológico, en el primer caso vinculándose con la
antropología mientras que en el segundo se acerca más a la historia militar. En este trabajo se pasa revista al
desarrollo de la Arqueología del Conflicto, recapitulando las principales posturas antropológicas en relación
al estudio de la guerra, el estudio arqueológico de conflictos prehistóricos y la arqueología histórica de
campos de batalla, así como proponiendo formas de lograr una mayor integración entre estos distintos
campos disciplinares.
The study of warfare and of different types and scales of group violence has experienced an enormous growth in contemporary archaeology. Although these studies are frequently included under the generic label of Conflict Archaeology, this denomination is far from representing a programmatically unified field. On the contrary, several different subfields exist within it, showing differences in their theoretical and methodological approaches. The main division is defined by the gap between prehistoric and historic studies, and the different forms of evidence both rely on. While the former is closely linked to anthropology, the latter is more congruent with military history. In this work, I review the development of Conflict Archaeology, discussing the main anthropological theories that account for the causes of war, the archaeological investigation of prehistoric conflicts, and the historical archaeology of battlefields, as well as I briefly propose ways of overcoming the division and achieving a greater integration between these different subfields.
The study of warfare and of different types and scales of group violence has experienced an enormous growth in contemporary archaeology. Although these studies are frequently included under the generic label of Conflict Archaeology, this denomination is far from representing a programmatically unified field. On the contrary, several different subfields exist within it, showing differences in their theoretical and methodological approaches. The main division is defined by the gap between prehistoric and historic studies, and the different forms of evidence both rely on. While the former is closely linked to anthropology, the latter is more congruent with military history. In this work, I review the development of Conflict Archaeology, discussing the main anthropological theories that account for the causes of war, the archaeological investigation of prehistoric conflicts, and the historical archaeology of battlefields, as well as I briefly propose ways of overcoming the division and achieving a greater integration between these different subfields.
Citación
Aprobación
Revisión
Complementado por
Referenciado por
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto donde se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este ítem se describe como Esta obra está sujeta a la Licencia Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional de Creative Commons.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/